view tests/test-rename-merge1.t @ 30435:b86a448a2965

zstd: vendor python-zstandard 0.5.0

As the commit message for the previous changeset says, we wish
for zstd to be a 1st class citizen in Mercurial. To make that
happen, we need to enable Python to talk to the zstd C API. And
that requires bindings.

This commit vendors a copy of existing Python bindings. Why do we
need to vendor? As the commit message of the previous commit says,
relying on systems in the wild to have the bindings or zstd present
is a losing proposition. By distributing the zstd and bindings with
Mercurial, we significantly increase our chances that zstd will
work. Since zstd will deliver a better end-user experience by
achieving better performance, this benefits our users. Another
reason is that the Python bindings still aren't stable and the
API is somewhat fluid. While Mercurial could be coded to target
multiple versions of the Python bindings, it is safer to bundle
an explicit, known working version.

The added Python bindings are mostly a fully-featured interface
to the zstd C API. They allow one-shot operations, streaming,
reading and writing from objects implements the file object
protocol, dictionary compression, control over low-level compression
parameters, and more. The Python bindings work on Python 2.6,
2.7, and 3.3+ and have been tested on Linux and Windows. There are
CFFI bindings, but they are lacking compared to the C extension.
Upstream work will be needed before we can support zstd with PyPy.
But it will be possible.

The files added in this commit come from Git commit
e637c1b214d5f869cf8116c550dcae23ec13b677 from
https://github.com/indygreg/python-zstandard and are added without
modifications. Some files from the upstream repository have been
omitted, namely files related to continuous integration.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I'm the maintainer of the
"python-zstandard" project and have authored 100% of the code
added in this commit. Unfortunately, the Python bindings have
not been formally code reviewed by anyone. While I've tested
much of the code thoroughly (I even have tests that fuzz APIs),
there's a good chance there are bugs, memory leaks, not well
thought out APIs, etc. If someone wants to review the code and
send feedback to the GitHub project, it would be greatly
appreciated.

Despite my involvement with both projects, my opinions of code
style differ from Mercurial's. The code in this commit introduces
numerous code style violations in Mercurial's linters. So, the code
is excluded from most lints. However, some violations I agree with.
These have been added to the known violations ignore list for now.

  $ hg init

  $ echo "[merge]" >> .hg/hgrc
  $ echo "followcopies = 1" >> .hg/hgrc

  $ echo foo > a
  $ echo foo > a2
  $ hg add a a2
  $ hg ci -m "start"

  $ hg mv a b
  $ hg mv a2 b2
  $ hg ci -m "rename"

  $ hg co 0
  2 files updated, 0 files merged, 2 files removed, 0 files unresolved

  $ echo blahblah > a
  $ echo blahblah > a2
  $ hg mv a2 c2
  $ hg ci -m "modify"
  created new head

  $ hg merge -y --debug
    searching for copies back to rev 1
    unmatched files in local:
     c2
    unmatched files in other:
     b
     b2
    all copies found (* = to merge, ! = divergent, % = renamed and deleted):
     src: 'a' -> dst: 'b' *
     src: 'a2' -> dst: 'b2' !
     src: 'a2' -> dst: 'c2' !
    checking for directory renames
  resolving manifests
   branchmerge: True, force: False, partial: False
   ancestor: af1939970a1c, local: 044f8520aeeb+, remote: 85c198ef2f6c
  note: possible conflict - a2 was renamed multiple times to:
   c2
   b2
   preserving a for resolve of b
  removing a
   b2: remote created -> g
  getting b2
   b: remote moved from a -> m (premerge)
  picked tool ':merge' for b (binary False symlink False changedelete False)
  merging a and b to b
  my b@044f8520aeeb+ other b@85c198ef2f6c ancestor a@af1939970a1c
   premerge successful
  1 files updated, 1 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  (branch merge, don't forget to commit)

  $ hg status -AC
  M b
    a
  M b2
  R a
  C c2

  $ cat b
  blahblah

  $ hg ci -m "merge"

  $ hg debugindex b
     rev    offset  length  ..... linkrev nodeid       p1           p2 (re)
       0         0      67  .....       1 57eacc201a7f 000000000000 000000000000 (re)
       1        67      72  .....       3 4727ba907962 000000000000 57eacc201a7f (re)

  $ hg debugrename b
  b renamed from a:dd03b83622e78778b403775d0d074b9ac7387a66

This used to trigger a "divergent renames" warning, despite no renames

  $ hg cp b b3
  $ hg cp b b4
  $ hg ci -A -m 'copy b twice'
  $ hg up eb92d88a9712
  0 files updated, 0 files merged, 2 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  $ hg up
  2 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  $ hg rm b3 b4
  $ hg ci -m 'clean up a bit of our mess'

We'd rather not warn on divergent renames done in the same changeset (issue2113)

  $ hg cp b b3
  $ hg mv b b4
  $ hg ci -A -m 'divergent renames in same changeset'
  $ hg up c761c6948de0
  1 files updated, 0 files merged, 2 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  $ hg up
  2 files updated, 0 files merged, 1 files removed, 0 files unresolved

Check for issue2642

  $ hg init t
  $ cd t

  $ echo c0 > f1
  $ hg ci -Aqm0

  $ hg up null -q
  $ echo c1 > f1 # backport
  $ hg ci -Aqm1
  $ hg mv f1 f2
  $ hg ci -qm2

  $ hg up 0 -q
  $ hg merge 1 -q --tool internal:local
  $ hg ci -qm3

  $ hg merge 2
  merging f1 and f2 to f2
  0 files updated, 1 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  (branch merge, don't forget to commit)

  $ cat f2
  c0

  $ cd ..

Check for issue2089

  $ hg init repo2089
  $ cd repo2089

  $ echo c0 > f1
  $ hg ci -Aqm0

  $ hg up null -q
  $ echo c1 > f1
  $ hg ci -Aqm1

  $ hg up 0 -q
  $ hg merge 1 -q --tool internal:local
  $ echo c2 > f1
  $ hg ci -qm2

  $ hg up 1 -q
  $ hg mv f1 f2
  $ hg ci -Aqm3

  $ hg up 2 -q
  $ hg merge 3
  merging f1 and f2 to f2
  0 files updated, 1 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  (branch merge, don't forget to commit)

  $ cat f2
  c2

  $ cd ..

Check for issue3074

  $ hg init repo3074
  $ cd repo3074
  $ echo foo > file
  $ hg add file
  $ hg commit -m "added file"
  $ hg mv file newfile
  $ hg commit -m "renamed file"
  $ hg update 0
  1 files updated, 0 files merged, 1 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  $ hg rm file
  $ hg commit -m "deleted file"
  created new head
  $ hg merge --debug
    searching for copies back to rev 1
    unmatched files in other:
     newfile
    all copies found (* = to merge, ! = divergent, % = renamed and deleted):
     src: 'file' -> dst: 'newfile' %
    checking for directory renames
  resolving manifests
   branchmerge: True, force: False, partial: False
   ancestor: 19d7f95df299, local: 0084274f6b67+, remote: 5d32493049f0
  note: possible conflict - file was deleted and renamed to:
   newfile
   newfile: remote created -> g
  getting newfile
  1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  (branch merge, don't forget to commit)
  $ hg status
  M newfile
  $ cd ..